Friday, June 22, 2012

More Sad News from Rand Paul

Rand Paul wants only "revenue neutral" tax changes by eliminating most tax deductions, he told CNN's Erin Burnett. This means only shuffling the type of taxes paid--but it gets worse.

Burnett in this interview is very good at drawing Rand out on a number issues. At one point she says he sounds like a Democrat, when he says that growth could solve much of the problem, that is, he doesn't mind spending at current levels if more can be taxed out of the economy as it grows.

She also calls him out on his claim that his tax proposal is revenue neutral. She tells him that it is "rate neutral" and says "that's a big difference". She is correct, it means higher taxes, not lower, or even neutral taxes.

Rand is sinking fast as a fighter for small government and more freedom for us all.

He even told Burnett that he said to President Obama. "I'll help you build bridges."

I wonder how much of this is psychological blowback from Rand due to all the negative reactions he got on his Romney endorsement. May be he was like "fine, screw you libertarians, I'll become more establishment if you can't appreciate my efforts."

More political correctness gone wild. What did Rand say? He said he would agree to closing some tax loopholes if the result was revenue neutral as PART OF A DEAL WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. So you get no tax increses (although you would get more revenue due to growth). Rand gives up nothing. But you do reduce the deficit, and you do get more growth and more jobs. It's a practical approach to try to deal with a small part of our existing problem. But it doesn't meet one of the thousands of litmus tests which have been erected by some elements of the liberty movement. If you want to eliminate the deficit, it is going to require more revenue, and it is certainly preferable that that revenue come from growth rather than taxes.

Suppose Rand had proposed the elimination of some regulations that would have resulted in more economic growth and therefore more tax revenue. Should we oppose it because it would increase tax revenue? Tax reform is no different. Tax loopholes are a form of government intervention.

We're going to need to replace many bridges. One answer would be to privatize the interstate highway system. That's not going to happen, and it isn't even a high priority for the liberty movement. Rand is telling Obama that we can pay for those bridges through a tax cut! That is certainly better than any other option currently on the table.

If Rand Paul suddenly decides to support bombing Iran, praises the NDAA, advocates bigger deficits, or proposes to strengthen the public employee unions; it's time to throw him under a bus. But what he is proposing here is completely consistent with free market principles. At the same time, it is a proposal that actually has some appeal to the Obama administration. Rand is addressing the practical issues that we face, and BW is criticizing him for being insufficiently ideological. It seems not to occur to Mr. Wenzel that if your programs are not practical, there might be something wrong with your ideology. Rand said it best when he said that his host was getting him into trouble by making him sound too reasonable.

Rand is not garden variety at all. He is beginning to look like a brilliant politician. He is showing that he has what it takes to govern. Daddy never did that and accomplished nothing in his 20+ years in Congress. Ron Paul refused to get out of his ideological strait jacket even rhetorically. He always gave preference to the ideological purity of his positions over the practical benefits. That's why he didn't win a single popular vote contest.

Rand differs little from his father on ideological issues, but his rhetoric stresses the practical benefits of that ideology, and that's something the general public can understand and relate to. If the liberty movement abandons Rand Paul, he has other options. We do not.

"Rand is not garden variety at all. He is beginning to look like a brilliant politician. He is showing that he has what it takes to govern."

Libertarians don't care about politicians being "brilliant" (as we know what that means when people say it), nor do libertarians care about "governance". Look up the word in the dictionary. Governance has nothing to do with liberty.Your positives are considered utter negatives by any libertarian worth his salt.

"Daddy never did that and accomplished nothing in his 20+ years in Congress."

The fact that you think Rand will accomplish more can only mean one thing: Rand will compromise on matters of consistency and principle (which you deride as "purity").Hence, Rand is a traitor to the cause, as history has proven how much it means when people aren't required to act according to their so-called convictions. Hello, Robb. ALL POLITICIANS say they believe in certain things, only to betray those things when power comes within reach. There's one sitting in the white house right now.Yet you expect us to believe Rand is somehow an exception to this type of snake-oil-salesman.Being willing to compromise is an everyday, common political trait. It's called being an establishmentarian.

"Ron Paul refused to get out of his ideological strait jacket even rhetorically. He always gave preference to the ideological purity of his positions over the practical benefits. That's why he didn't win a single popular vote contest."

No, he didn't win a single popular vote contest because he didn't pretend to be a neocon asshole when he is in fact a libertarian conservative. He doesn't sell off what he believes in, in exchange for scraps which may not even be coming. How many politicians have ended up getting what they wanted by trading away their principles?As far as those popularity votes are concerned, two things can be said:1) They are won by catering to those who don't believe in liberty anyway, which means that if Rand believes in liberty, he can only get them by lying. Unless he doesn't truly believe in liberty, in which case he is the wretched "brilliant politician" you claim he is. Either way, if Ron Paul can't win the popularity vote and Rand can, the only conclusion can be that Rand is catering to them with NON-liberty viewpoints.2) Ron Paul is educating people. People need to be educated before you can win a popularity vote on issues of liberty. Rand is getting nowhere (if he is the liberty guy you pretend he is), because he is losing the liberty-voter, and he is only gaining the war-hungry, flag waving neocon. Especially once the now-still cheerleaders for Rand realize just what guy he has endorsed.

"Rand differs little from his father on ideological issues, but his rhetoric stresses the practical benefits of that ideology..."

What nonsense. If he differed little, he wouldn't be endorsing a hawk scumbag. He wouldn't be spoken of positively by NR. He wouldn't be turning true libertarians away.How on earth can you stress the practical benefit of PEACE when you endorse a warmonger and vote for sanctions against Iran? Maybe you think the difference between being against empire and an aggressive foreign policy on one hand, and actively supporting it (among others) on the other hand is a non-issue.

"If the liberty movement abandons Rand Paul, he has other options. We do not."

There is no "we" in the liberty movement that includes the current version of Rand. He is not an option.The argument that Rand would need to be accepted because "we have no other options" is a non-argument. By that reasoning, we would have to accept any scumbag that could be considered the least of all evils.And by the way, if Rand has other options, it would only prove that he is indeed a "brilliant politician", and not a reliable man of convictions.

I agree that we should abandon Rand Paul if he betrays libertarian convictions. The point is that he hasn't done that. What has he done? He endorsed Romney. Most posters agree here that he should do that. He promised to support the nominee and there are liberty candidates who will need the help of Romney supporters. The major objection was to the timing. Maybe it was poorly timed. But that is a tactical issue, not an issue of principle.

Now he wants to close loopholes and cut tax rates. That's perfectly consistent with free market principles. In fact, I happen to be believe it is a MORE free market position. Loopholes are a form of government intervention in the markets. And he's suggesting to Obama that a tax cut would be the best way to fund road improvements that have to be made anyway.

You may agree or disagree with the positions, but where is the inconsistency with libertarian priciples? They are arguments over details. Mises disagreed with Hayek. Hayek disagreed with Rothbard. Rothbard disagreed with Mises. Yet all libertarians are supposed to agree exactly and on every position including tactical decisions.

Why didn't Ron Paul propose to eliminate the income tax? If elected, he'd have to collect it. Wouldn't that violate libertarian principles? Clearly, Ron Paul had to prioritize his proposals, and he put a priority on balancing the budget. Rand Paul is doing nothing different. He is prioritizing the policies he favors.

The real objection to Rand Paul is that he isn't flattering the dogmatists by genuflecting to their every wish and command. Ron Paul could give lip service to abolishing the income tax in a campaign speech but Rand Paul can't put that into a piece of legislation.

But such flattery is just the stuff of political correctness. No debate is permitted. Only the party line can be enunciated and any deviation, no matter how trivial, must be condemned. In power such a movement would be dangerous. We would betray our liberty out of our own dogmatism. Out of power, such a movement merely risks irrelvancy.

"What has he done? He endorsed Romney. Most posters agree here that he should do that."

No, most posters here disagree with that. You're living in fantasy land if you think most of us agree with him on this. Most of us agree with Ron Paul that there is no difference between Mitt and Obama and there is no sense in endorsing either of these tyrants.

"Now he wants to close loopholes and cut tax rates. That's perfectly consistent with free market principles. In fact, I happen to be believe it is a MORE free market position. Loopholes are a form of government intervention in the markets. And he's suggesting to Obama that a tax cut would be the best way to fund road improvements that have to be made anyway."

He is offering a plan that increases government revenue as he said in the video. It is against libertarian principles to grow the government.

"Why didn't Ron Paul propose to eliminate the income tax?"

He has said we should end the income tax many times.

"But such flattery is just the stuff of political correctness. No debate is permitted. Only the party line can be enunciated and any deviation, no matter how trivial, must be condemned. In power such a movement would be dangerous. We would betray our liberty out of our own dogmatism. Out of power, such a movement merely risks irrelvancy."

You don't betray our liberty by sticking to libertarianism. You betray it when you deviate from it. Ron Paul has brought millions of people into the liberty movement by sticking to his message and not deviating to further his political career. On one side we have Ron Paul and the Mises Institute and the other we have Rand Paul and Cato. It is undeniable which method has been more successful for spreading the message of libertarianism and Austrian economics.

Robb: "I agree that we should abandon Rand Paul if he betrays libertarian convictions. The point is that he hasn't done that. What has he done? He endorsed Romney. Most posters agree here that he should do that."

LOL!! Robb, you've mistaken this site for NRO, the Weekly Standard, or the moronic TownHall. There's no one here who believes Rand is a libertarian or agrees he should have endorsed Romney. You're delusional.

All this political capitulation is because the libertarians and such, including Rand Paul, see the situation on a purely economic-political level. Capitalism must be fought for on an epistemolgical-moral level. (What we know objectively and how we integrate that rational knowledge into a moral code which man can live by).

"Since knowledge, thinking and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man's survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don't. ...They must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or pursue their own independent judgement... Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man's mind.

"Such a mind may be hampered by others, it may be silenced proscribed, imprisoned or destroyed; it cannot be forced; a gun is not an argument. (An example and symbol of this is Galileo.) It is from the work and the inviolate integrity of such minds ...that all of mankind's knowledge and achievements have come. It is to such minds that mankind owes its survival." --Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Aside from Rand's Iran sanctions vote (and any other scattered pro-neocon votes I may have missed), the shift in his publicly seen politics has been incredibly - maybe even abnormally - abrupt.

Is it because:

A.) He no longer has to campaign for his father? ... And patience and subtlety are not his (or his "advisors'") strong suits?

B.) He thinks he no longer has to pretend(?) to be like his father for the sake of his father's campaign? ... And patience and subtlety are not his (or his "advisors'") strong suits?

C.) He has been increasingly seduced/influenced/etc. to show his true colors(?) / false colors(?) now that his father's presidential run is presumed to be over? ... And patience and subtlety are not his seducers'/influencers'/"etc.'s" strong suits?

In the meantime, National Review praises Rand, and describes him as a staunch Romney's supporter.It's disgusting:

"Inside Romney world, the Kentucky freshman’s stock is rising. He’s certainly not a leading veep contender — he has not been asked for paperwork — but he is a valued ally. Within weeks, Paul will hit the trail for Romney. Rallies and other public events are in the works."

Who cares about the Pakistani informant issue, end foreign aid to Pakistan because it DOESN'T WORK, is Unconstitutional, and takes money from the poor in America and gives it to the rich regime in Pakistan. The informant being in jail should be irrelevant to that decision.

As an alternative title, I would suggest "Unlike his father, Rand would like to actually accomplish something."

In the post, RW doesn't explain the basis of his criticism. He assumes that merely because Rand seems supportive in this interview of "revenue neutral" tax changes he has committed some great sin against libertarianism, and that Rand is "sinking fast as a fighter for small government and more freedom for us all." Now, while I disagree, I can understand that some are very upset with Rand's endorsement of Romney, and/or Rand's vote for Iran sanctions. But "revenue neutral" tax changes, and, God forbid, he sounds a little like a Democrat at times? (Ron Paul btw was also accused of this sin by National Review and the Weekly Standard during the primaries on the issue of entitlements).

RW criticism traces to Rothbard's view that tax shelters/loopholes were a good thing and that revenue neutral tax reform was actually bad because it got rid of all those tax shelters. I believe there is some merit in Rothbard's view, but let's not pretend there isn't another side to this argument. Rothbard himself acknowledged the people who generally get the loopholes are not the general public, but the politically well connected with their armies of lobbyists. For many people though, these loopholes are a form of crony capitalism. Of course, in terms of economic and tax efficiency, all things being equal, it seems better to have lower overall tax rates than high overall rates and all those tax loopholes.

****"As an alternative title, I would suggest "Unlike his father, Rand would like to actually accomplish something."****

LOL!! Sorry Mr. Tony Montana, but you make as much sense as your namesake coke-snorting Scarface character. Ronald Reagan sure accomplished a lot didn't he? Import quotas, giant budgets and deficits, departments of Energy and Education that were supposed to be long gone. Awwww, gee, I'm so stoked that Rand is now here to save us.

Why do you call it revenue neutral after he admitted it is not? He said it is rate neutral and that revenue would actually increase under his plan. No libertarian would advocate for a plan that grows government revenue. It seems like Rand is looking to become the next Jim Demint instead of the next Ron Paul. That's fine for him, but don't be surprised when his libertarian base abandons him and makes sure everyone realizes he is not like us.

What's did he say that's so sad?? He wants to simplify the tax code by lowering rates and closing deductions. Granted unlike his father he doesn't say we should get rid of the 16th amendment but that's Fantasy Island material.

Wenzel and his fellow Rockwellians can chant Rothbard Rothbard Rothbard till hell freezes over, but they still haven't moved the country towards a non interventionist foreign policy, free market money, or smaller government.

Rothbard, Rockwell, Ron Paul, et alii expand the libertarian base by refusing to compromise and reiterating the rationality behind their views. It's an uphill battle that I'm not sure can be actually be won. But it needs to start with educating the masses and getting them to embrace a return to liberty. Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns have been substantial steps in that direction.

The only thing Rand Paul will accomplish by compromising his principles (assuming that he does hold similar views as his father - something that I very highly doubt at this point) is to further his own career.

What principles has he compromised?? I'm a huge Ron Paul fan, he used to be my congressman until redistricting in 2001-02. He's accomplished much over the past two years, but he's never going to get much more than 15-20 percent. Rand is trying to reach out to Red State Republicans without giving away the store.

"Ron Paul antiwar appeal won him friends on the left, but it was also why this politician with impeccable credentials on core Republican issues like taxes (he wants to eliminate the income tax), spending (he’s the only Republican candidate with a budget that balanced in three years with no new taxes), and regulation (he thinks they strangle the wealth-creating properties of free markets) had such a hard time gaining traction with the Tea Party base, who don’t see the connection Paul sees between a constitutionally limited, affordable government and a less expansionist foreign policy.

If the Tea Party really were transpartisan outsiders dedicated to fighting bailouts and shrinking spending, Ron Paul should have been their man. In 2012, they’ve revealed themselves more as loyal Republicans than as a rebel army. Paul’s campaign is trying to gently guide the Paul movement through that same transition."

The Tea Party was transitioned into being loyal republicans and the guys like Benton, Hunter, Tate, and Rand Paul want to transition the Ron Paul revolution into being loyal republicans. Well said, Brian. I think the plan is idiotic, but I do see this plan trying to be developed.

"Rand is trying to reach out to Red State Republicans without giving away the store."

For God's sakes, he voted for SANCTIONS against Iran.How many times does it have to be said that as far as genuine libertarians are concerned, that miserable fact alone already proves that he has "given away the store" (if he ever belonged in it).

We could go through his words, his actions and his voting record over the years with a fine-tooth-comb, like how he himself admits that he is not one of us, but it simply isn't even necessary. He voted for an aggressive foreign policy measure against a country for not falling in line with American dictates. War is about as unlibertarian as you can get. By just that vote alone he hasn't just given away the store. He has burned it down. There is no more store for him.

1. Revenue neutral means that it doesn't make taxation worse. 2. Eliminating deductions in exchange for lower marginal rates means that more parasites will be required to pay, and productive individuals will pay less.

In other words, his position is that we should make things equal-or-better (equal in terms of total tax burden, better in terms of tax composition). In a congress where tax cuts have a ZERO chance of passing, this is the best outcome one could hope for. Given the constraints of the problem, it is the course of action any engineer would take.

You must have missed the part where Rand admitted it isn't revenue neutral. It is rate neutral. Rand says that the government does get more revenue under his ideas. More revenue for the government is not what a libertarian wants. We want much much less revenue for the government. Your so called best outcome will still result in a collapse of our economy. If you're in favor of government growing at a slower pace then I can understand supporting Rand here, but if your in favor of less government and more freedom then he isn't doing anything to help. I don't want people associating Rand as a libertarian because he is just slightly better than a Jim Demint republican.

The only reason it isn't revenue neutral is because the economy would be growing again, because of spending cuts and lower tax rates. Lower spending = less government and more freedom. Again, he said in the interview that spending needs to come down.

We won't have lower tax rates. He wants to off set tax cuts with closing of loop holes. That is why he said his plan is rate neutral. He wants a government that consumes 20% of GDP on a yearly basis. This isn't libertarianism, it is Jim Demintism.

Once again, Rand's words are spun to make it sound like he said something that he didn't.

What he said was that tax rates should come down and spending as well, to at least the historic level of 20 percent of GDP (inferring that those changes will cause the economy to grow). Then the deductions and loop holes would be closed, thus the "revenue problem" wouldn't be as bad as it is now because the economy would be growing again.

RW, the Senator never said that "he doesn't mind spending at current levels if more can be taxed out of the economy as it grows." How much clearer could he have been when he said that spending needs to come down? He said right now we're spending at 24 percent of GDP and it needs to come to 20 percent.

I don't think that all Austrian economists favor tax deductions, and that is something that can be debated all day.

It's almost sickening to me to hear the extreme libertarians, like RW, Rockwell, and Raimundo say all this crap so they can get hits to their websites. Just publish honest content, because this definitely isn't. And it seems more and more you're just playing to the more gullible people who read your site, kind of like those old Ron Paul newsletters played to the conspiracy theorists and fanatics so the writers could make big bucks, which they did.

So go ahead and keep dogging people like Gary Johnson and Rand Paul, two people who have and will actually get something done. Ron Paul started a movement, but aside from that, he didn't acclomplish anything while in office. Obviously the strategy is going to be a little bit different with Rand if he is going to make any kind of difference at all. I hope the rest of your readers wake up to this crap you're trying to pull. Most of your content is good, but his almost makes me want to stop reading your site just like I did lewrockwell.com.

"The opposite “deviation” is “opportunism”: the willingness to collaborate with any halfway measures or organizations, and, in effect, to abandon the true principles in the name of gradualist advance, “realism,” “practical life,” etc. These are the real sellers-out of the revolution, and they almost always, in historical Leninist experience, end by turning “reformist” and abandoning—in fact and later even de jure—their revolutionary principles. These people are ignoble, and, if they are at all effective, they are not effective in the proper, revolutionary direction."

You can find that quote under the section:Rothbard’s Confidential Memorandum to the Volker Fund,“What Is to Be Done?”July 1961To: F.A. Harper, George ReschSTRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

The fact that you view Rockwell, Wenzel, and Raimondo as extreme libertarians and put your support behind Gary Johnson and Rand Paul says a lot. Maybe you are not a libertarian. Rand certainly says he is not a libertarian, and Gary is about as far away from the type of libertarian Ron Paul is that you can get. Maybe you are just a conservative who happens to like some libertarian ideas. That would explain your anger to some of the greatest libertarians in our movement.

My point was that they are all spinning things a certain way, which is at best misleading. Such as in RW's comments under his headline to this article, saying Rand said something that he never said. How principled is that? How principled is it to make a buck by playing off gullible followers? Way to go there, Rothbard, Wenzel, and Rockwell.

I just think you don't understand what Wenzel said. Rand says his plan would be to get the government to spend 20% of what GDP is. He also said that his plan would increase government revenues as the economy grows. So if the economy grows enough to wear tax receipts are equal to current spending levels then he is saying he is fine with that. Obviously, libertarians are horrified at these kind of statements. We don't think current spending is fine if only the economy was bigger. We think that even if the economy were much bigger we should see spending levels reduced as much as possible. Rothbardians would like government spending levels to be zero. It is not us who is being gullible, it is you have trouble with reading comprehension.

I understood what Wenzel said, he was deliberately misleading people, spinning what Rand said, and it's disgusting. If he doesn't agree with what Rand is doing, fine. At least be objective and stop the spin.

"So if the economy grows enough to wear tax receipts are equal to current spending levels then he is saying he is fine with that."

No, he isn't. He said we need to cut spending first, which obviously means spending would be LOWER than current spending levels. Spending cuts combined with tax rate cuts would then lead to an increase in GDP and thus revenues with it.

"We don't think current spending is fine if only the economy is bigger." Which is why he said we need to CUT SPENDING.

Yes, yes.Politicians get something "done". They get something done all the time. That doesn't make either Johnson or Rand special.

The question is WHAT are they getting done, not only in the positive but also the negative sense.In the cases of both Rand and Johnson enough has already been written.

If you want to understand libertarians it is really not that complicated. Maybe you are not a libertarian, and just think you are because the label has been bandied around so much lately and any moderate conservative likes to adopt it just because the word "liberty" sounds so good coming out of Gary Johnson or Rand Paul's mouth. I've seen everyone and his uncle being labeled a "libertarian" of some type just because they favor a smaller state, as if that is the only requirement. Hell, even Clint Eastwood is considered a "libertarian" despite pimping the bail out of corporations like General Motors.

Speaking for myself, there are two types of individualist libertarians. Anarcho-capitalists and minarchists. While i personally think minarchism is irrational, i have no problem with them being called libertarians provided they believe one thing: that the state is a necessary evil, the existence of which can only be justified as a protector of negative rights and individual liberty.

No libertarian believes the government has a right to stick its nose in education, the economy, personal habits, attacking countries that have not attacked us, or anything else that has nothing to do with protecting negative rights and individual liberty.

Gary Johnson and Rand Paul fail this condition miserably. They aren't even minarchists. They are just moderate statists.

So excuse us for not kissing their rear end, evaluating them on their positions and drawing our conclusions. We don't need "a little bit less poison". We don't want ANY poison. And we're not going to drink a vial of the stuff, no matter how small, just because the majority of America thinks it tastes so good.

Well, at least I'm objective, which apparently is more than most of the people on this site can say. If you keep being so dogmatic, you will just push people away. Many people already think most of the Ron Paul followers, and Ron Paul himself, are crazy. People like you just validate their opinions. And I blame Wenzel, Rockwell, etc for brain washing you because you can't think for yourself.

No one is saying to compromise anything, I'm certainly not. All I have been saying is that RW and others should have some integrity and just be honest. He's got a libertarian blog here, but that doesn't mean he can't be objective. He doesn't like what Rand is doing, but that doesn't give him the right to put words in his mouth.

Here's a clue, Dan. What you want, is a utopia. It's NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Jared, you still are having trouble with reading comprehension. What I want is freedom. If that makes you uncomfortable I really don't care.

You come on this site and complain because we disagree with Rand Paul and then proceed to complain that we are too libertarian. We read too much Rothbard, Tom Woods, Wenzel, Robert Murphy, Hoppe, Kinsella, Rockwell, Block, Dilorenzo, Bastiat, Mises, etc. in your opinion. You think we are brainwashed because we take the time to study every aspect of libertarian philosophy just like Ron Paul has recommended everyone do. You seem very hostile to libertarian philosophy and the greatest men our movement has produced. Maybe you are not a libertarian. Or if you are, maybe you should actually take the time to study the philosophy so you know what you are talking about. You don't want to sound like the MSM by calling libertarianism a utopian idea. It's just sad when you say things like that.

Looks like you all above won't be going to the Republican orgasm in Miami. Good bet anyway not to go, buy some silver and a bottle of scotch. Stop wasting your time on these politicos. Your driving yourselves crazy. Lot of nice typing, and reading though.

Erin exposes herself as a Keynesian/Democrat - 2:52 "Senator Paul...I feel like I'm talking to a Democrat...if the economy were growing again the problem would go away. There are a lot of people your party that won't even acknowledge that. They are so obsessed with cutting spending...You don't share that line in the sand obsession." She also promotes infrastructure spending. More spending = more borrowing = more $$$ for banks. She's still shilling for banks.

So abolishing the SEC would eliminate thousands of regulations, free the economy to grow, and increase employment. But all that growth would create new taxpayers, and new taxpayers would mean more government revenue. Therefore, we should not abolish the SEC. In fact, we shouldn't get rid of ANY regulations if it might be good for the economy because that would increase government revenue.

That's the kind of "logic" the lockstep libertarians on this site are reduced to defending. Under the current sorry conditions of the economy, Rand's proposal would be revenue neutral, but since the tax reductions that he proposes would help the economy, it would also produce more revenue. We can't have that so lets just keep this same stinking economy.

But you're missing out on how clever Rand Paul is actually being. We need to repair bridges and roads. Obama will try to use that to justify more taxes. But Rand can now say, "No, Mr. President, I showed you how we can raise the needed revenue by CUTTING TAXES."

And if Obama wants to slam his opponents for supporting, "Tax cuts for the rich," Rand can say, "But Mr. President, I proposed a plan to close loopsholes, and you rejected it."

I know these are sophmoric games, but it's how politics is conducted. You need "talking points" and "sound bites." Rand is far better attuned to this than his father was. But yes, it makes him sound more like other politicians. People here seem to want to pillory him for not beginning every speech with "End the Fed."

No, libertarians can take the position that we should not only abolish the SEC and the rest of these institutions but we should also abolish taxes. It doesn't surprise me that Rand would be in favor of a plan that grows government revenue and caps spending at 20% of GDP considering he is not a libertarian, but that doesn't mean actual libertarians should be impressed with his Herman Cain impression.

I didn't contribute to Rand Paul's campaign for the Senate. I didn't vote for him. I'm not disappointed that he's done or said anything that he has because I never felt he was being sincere. I didn't think he was anything like his father as apparently so many in the Ron Paul campaign did. I do not think Rand Paul nor anyone else can change the government from within. History I believe speaks to this repeatedly. Government itself is the quintessential welfare recepient. So is roughly half the public today. To think that so many with a stake in the system would ever favor any movement towards towards individual liberty, when doing so would effectively eliminate their cash cow taxpayers, strikes me as the height of improbability. It is not Rand Paul that surprises me near as much as the public at large who continually believe from one election to the next, that either a Democrat or a Republican, will actually make a difference. The idea that growing Leviathan at a slower pace is somehow preferable to some strikes me as absurd. Could I do so I would strike it down tomorrow. I want a legacy for my children, and their children, that doesn't consign them to be being a beast of burden for the beasts of prey. I'm tired of the "you owe me, I want" masses. I'm tired of hearing about the poor. Do you mean the poor with their cell phones, plasma TVs, Blackberrys...that sort of poor. Somehow the concept of "poor" has become synonomous with "not living as well as those who work". I really cringe when I hear people like Burnett refer to this country's poor as though we have anyone in this country living off $2.00 a day. Government itself is nothing but stinking welfare where it and half it's subjects endeavors to live at the other half's expense. And I'm suppose to believe that somehow this can be changed from within? Dream on. You will wake up one day and find that you are old and all you have to show for it is having kept the faith in the same system year after year after year, for nothing. You will die as you have lived with your head still stuck up the collectivist ass.

Erin is still full of shit on spending, the "poor" etc. As much as she gets right on taxes.

Paul needs to realise that deductions etc are great tools in deceiving taxmen who themselves don't know how all these arcane rules work. What matters is not "fairness" in form but reducing our tax burden, here in Europe and in the US, as much as possible. Whether it's a flat tax code with no room for deductions or one with a million and one deductions, the more tax avoidance (read: theft prevention) it allows, the better.

Her America #1 rah-rahism is also annoying as hell.

I don't think she's out to expose him, or if she is, she's not doing so in ways she anticipated. She had some bones to pick which were worth noting but her overall message is still deplorable.

OF COURSE spending is the fucking problem. Get a grip, heads in the sand ostrich media morons.